One of the longest standing challenges facing photographers has been working with photographic media that inherently has a lower dynamic range than what we, the photographer, see with our own eyes. This challenge has spurred a lot of innovative solutions enabling photographers to push film and digital media to their limit. These innovations have included various darkroom techniques for film, graduated neutral density filters for in the field use and a variety of digital dark room techniques including High Dynamic Range (HDR) processing.
Of all the approaches to address the limited dynamic range challenge, High Dynamic Range (HDR) processing is one of the few photo techniques that I’ve grown to hate and here is why:
Mathematical vs Aesthetic Solution
One of the two main reasons that I hate this technique is that it is a solution centered more around math than it is around aesthetics. Mathematically the output of an HDR rendered photo tells us that it represents what the human eye would see, but the software creating an the HDR photo lacks the intelligence to display the output as the human brain would process it when naturally viewed.
As I see it two fundamental problems face HDR ouput:
1. Dynamic range is an interpretive process.
The human brain determines dynamic range in a relative fashion by formulating lighting relationships and physical relationships learned from years of experience in our environment.
2. Current display technology lacks the ability to accurately display HDR output. Mathematically an HDR file might equate to what we would see with the naked eye, but current monitors are unable to display the entire tonal range of that file. In fact HDR files are output as tone mapped files that match the dynamic range capabilities of standard monitors or prints. As a result much if not all of the added benefit is unrealized.
Novelty vs. Applied Solution
The next reason why I hate HDR photography is that most people doing it approach its use as a novelty rather than an applied solution. In the process most images are completely butchered. This is most especially true of landscape and nature photographs. Much can be said for artistic style and there are a few photographers out there that have used HDR processed files rather creatively, but by and large most photographers are using HDR as a “gee whiz neat” function that does nothing other than create throw away images worthy neither of repeat viewing or print.
With all new output solutions, whether film or digital software functionality, there is an evolution of use. Photographers first experiment, use to an extreme / over use and then settle on a refined more balanced output. With digital there seems to be more of an extreme swing of experimentation and use to an extreme / over use and this is all to apparent with HDR processing. See this for yourself with HDR landscape photos on Flickr.
I find it quite ironic HDR processing, the functionality to create imagery with a dynamic range equivalent to that the human eye sees naturally, is seldom used for this purpose. In fact the pursuit of non-realistic tonal range is often what people seem to be aiming for. Consistently, as I have investigated current HDR trends, the images that look the most unnatural and unattractive to me are created using Photomatix. Adobe Photoshop CS2 was one of the first widely available applications to provide the functionality to create HDR imagery, but as of late Photomatix seems to be the application of choice for many would be photographers/digital artists. How Photomatix came to be the application of choice I’m not sure, but its output is truly the worst. Examples of Photomatix created imagery can be found in the Photomatix group on Flickr.
So what is it about HDR processed images that I hate?
The vast majority of HDR processed photos do not display the world in a natural fashion.
1. Uneven Shadow Tonality – where there should be shadow detail there is often not and shadow tonality is often inconsistent for areas that should be equivalent.
2. Nearly Reversed Tonality – sky and clouds often are dark while areas you would expect to see natural shadows are bright
3. Unnatural transitions between highlights, midtones and shadows – in combination with the previously mentioned reversed tonality, tonal transitions often look to have an inconsistent if not backward appearance.
4. Extreme Contrast – tonal extremes, in combination with previously mentioned reversed tonality and unnatural transitions, often create results that look cartoon-ish and overly graphical.
5. Reduced Contrast – depending on the scene and application used the net output of an HDR processed image can result in an image with unnaturally reduced contrast. The net result is an image that appears too bright with too much shadow detail.
HDR Alternatives
If you’re looking to create a more natural looking image with a broader dynamic range I would recommend a few other approaches.
1. Graduated Neutral Density (GND) Filters – using these types of filters will assist in balancing your exposure by selectively reducing the intensity of light reaching your film or digital sensor. The net effect is narrowing the dynamic range of the scene so your camera can achieve a proper exposure. The upside to using GND filters is that this reduces the need for some post-processing saving you time. The downsides are that additional equipment is required and GND filters are designed with a linear graduation impacting (albeit minimally) photographed scenes with uneven horizons (think tree lines).
2. Masking and Local Adjustments in Photoshop – one trick of the trade to deal with complex and uneven horizons is to make adjustments via masks in Photoshop. There are a variety of tutorials out there and the technique is quite easy to learn. The upside is you gain a lot of tonal control over your image, but the downside is that you can burn a lot of time while post-processing your image.
3. Double Processing RAW Files – if you’re shooting digitally in RAW format you can process one image twice (potentially more) to achieve an output for each tonal range of interest to you. This in essence is a scaled back version of HDR processing. The upside is you gain a great deal of control over your adjustments, but the downside is that it takes additional time and is a manual process requiring a little more hands on work.
Final Thoughts
Although HDR processed images theoretically can come the closest to matching the dynamic range we see with our eyes, they are never fully realized in output on monitors and print. So given the display and print limitations are you creating a better photo if you can never see the difference? I say, “No”. Dynamic range limitations of film and digital sensors have created opportunities to create less clinical reproductions of reality enabling the introduction of mildly artistic elements such as contrast, vignetting and so on.
Since dynamic range gains from HDR processed images are not seen with current display technology many have taken to exaggerating settings to produce wildly out of whack images that are now becoming the associated image type with HDR. This is regrettable two fold as HDR has become the latest photo adjustment fad and strangely when an image is properly exposed and processed viewers are now more apt to ask if the photo is an HDR processed image. Sadly HDR has long crossed over into the category of photo technology porn. The availability of the technology has resulted in its over use and abuse resulting in a flood of sub-par images. Amidst the flood of these sub-par images there are some photographers producing very naturally looking HDR images, but regrettably they are the exception.
Links:
High Dynamic Range Photography Taken with GND Filters Natural looking HDR photography by Sean McHugh
Using the High Dynamic Range (HDR) Feature in Photoshop CS2 by Sean McHugh
Adjustment Layers Are Your Friend by Russell Abraham
Double-Process RAW For Better Tonality – PCPhoto
[tags]HDR, High Dynamic Range, Photoshop, Photomatix, graduated neutral density, filters, adjustment layer, RAW, double-process, tonality, dynamic range, [/tags]
fabien, so I guess you want your images to scream “non-dramatic”, “average” or “so-so” skies? I can help you reach these goals, remove your circular polarizer filter from your camera, use a high ISO setting and try to shoot mid-day on sunny days should be a good start! 🙂 You are the first photographer I have ever heard that didn’t want “dramatic skies” for their images…interesting!
My hope is that there are enough people of differing tastes to keep the variety up and pushing new techniques and means to bring fresh imagery to us all.
@Jim, finally something I can agree with you on…”a technique that can shine or sink based on the creative mind employing it”. Correct, no different with any part of photography, it is up to the photographer for the end results of any image.
Here are some of my 3 exposure images that I consider natural/true toned as opposed to the surreal…what say you?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/2709357044/sizes/l/in/set-72157606340150948/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/2061495048/sizes/l/in/set-72157594403866898/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/2721118389/sizes/l/in/set-72157606340150948/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/751640311/sizes/l/in/set-72157600710864650/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serrator/1281511181/sizes/l/in/set-72157601660525826/
Pingback: Photography techniques - HDR « One guy, three girls…
I knew an artist-photographer that had a gallery showing using x-ray photography. It was a beautiful, fascinating show. Human’s don’t naturally see x-rays and I suppose there would be purists that would suggest we should only use “natural” photography to express our artistic, photographic visions. I say, every filter, lens, photoshop tool and even vaseline should be left up to the artist to employ, achieving whatever artistic concept it is that they want to present. HDR is just another tool in the bag.
Some “purist” painters say you should never use the color black in a piece, that you should achieve black by combining other colors. I say, if your vision is best achieved by usiing black paint….then use black paint! People internalize these “expert” opinions and never consider that artistic leeway exist and it is okay to stray from these opinions. Group-think can take over. Suddenly HDR is a bad word because elite photographers are threatened by the ease in which less experienced people can achieve a dramatic image. It becomes “tacky” or “pedestrian”. HDR is just a tool that can of course be overused but it shouldn’t be taken out of the photographers satchel.
Art is about intent, not just the tools used to achieve it. If someone uses HDR as part of their photographic process, so what, as long as they achieve the final image they are striving for.
@Steve A technique is not bad. How a technique is over used can be. How a technique is applied with out thought can be. I don’t argue with your larger picture view. If suddenly everyone had X-Ray cameras and everyone was doing it with out thought my argument might be similar. Applying a technique doesn’t make it art especially when a technique is so easily and generically applied. Coming from a Landscape and Nature slant a photo realistic approach is nuanced and few people do it well. On the other end of the spectrum those that apply HDR in a very precise fashion to create stylistic images the same can be said… not many people do it well. As to everything in between well… thats been summarized in my original post. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
@Steve,
Great post! I think you captured a big part of the threatened mindset of the self-made “experts”. HDR/TM has become a challenge to the purist and infringes on their so-called territory. The only option they feel they have is to belittle this technique as if this will somehow diminish HDR/TM’s results. I wish them the best of luck on that losing gameplan…the proliferation of HDR tools and images alone testifies to it’s mainstream acceptance already.
You mention that it can be “overused”, how and when do we know when it is overused? I am not sure we can really make these sort of global verdicts since who really is the final authority or judge?
Just as Jim makes statements that some techniques can be used “badly”…says who? Jim?? Jim may find an image is not to his tastes, but that does not make it “bad”. We (and Jim) are not the ultimate photographic image gods, but just lowly mortal beings with personal tastes…nothing more. In other words I refuse to let Jim and or so-called experts tell me what is “good” or “bad”, I rather make my own choices to what appeals to me. I think you hit on it with the “group think” mentality.
I enjoyed reading your article and several of the comments left. I just discovered HDR and find that, if used appropriately, it can produce very nice results. Not much different than using filters in my opinion. It sounds to me like a bunch of elitist photographers who have a “better than thou” attitude and decry the use of technolgy have been visiting this site. Photography is an ART form. I believe it can be used in a variety of ways based on what the person behind the camera wishes to convey. Don’t be so closed minded. Yes, no software made yet is going to come close to reproducing human vision and “displaying the world in a natural fashion.” That is why Ansel Adams spent hours working on his photographs in the darkroom. When I first started to get into photography I hated black and white images. I though they were boring becasue they had no punch. Now, many years later, I find that black and white photography is far superior to color in many ways and often has more punch. I had to open my eyes and my mind and find good examples of various works to make me understand this. Don’t be an elitist. Blame bad photography on the photographer, not on the technology.
Pingback: HDR Photography with a QTVR Panorama | One from the Peanut Gallery
As one of the early software developer of image processing techniques for photo manipulation, I totally disagree with the statement that there is a “correct” use of HDR.
That is like saying there is a correct way to paint… were the Impressionists just guys who needed glasses? So what if there are people posting images not considered “natural.” We should celebrate these new directions.
Photography should be a fun exploratory process… not some “this is how it should be done” thing.
Good article, and very diplomatically stated. I would have been more blunt. HDR photography is already overexposed (no pun intended), overrated and overused and it screams amateur to me. If I see one more Las Vegas strip HDR photo I think I am going to hurl…
While I do not agree with you, I can appreciate your opinion on HDR photography. My only tip would be for you to brush up on your grammar. When disrespecting an artist you should disrespect them with correct verbiage.
I agree with writer of the article. Perhaps HDR is a tool, unfortunately it is a tool often held in the hands of amateurs, and like all tools in that situation, over, or even mis-use is apparent. There are very few images that I have seen processed with this technique that have actually inspired me to want to try it. Frankly, I have never been in a photographic situation where I have felt the need to try it, and to be honest, those that abound the most are idoor shots of churches, old buildings, and seascapes with their overcooked skys that all look the same. I guess I am an old fashioned guy who likes his images to represent an idea rather than technical perfection. I don’t mind some grain/noise, or clipped shadow and highlight. I prefer the look that we got with some of the older film emulsions and tend to strive after that. OK we are in the digital era now, and I for one applaud and work with it. But that doesn’t mean everything about it is good. Those that love HDR will continue to use it and enjoy it. Those who don’t won’t. There’s no argument really as it’s all about what turns you on and makes your day.
How can there be a ‘correct use of HDR’. I write HDR algorithms for metrology, using it to gather more information from a very low resolution CCD. It’s just a manipulation method to get what you what.
It annoys me when the argument of it’s a based on maths, so it’s not natural and thus bad is used. What do you think works your camera?
I agree many of the HDR images look a bit too garish on flickr; so people like to experiment and upload there working for all to see, that’s the point isn’t it? Youtube is full of low quality camera phone videos and Facebook is full of rubbish holiday snaps, doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy looking at them.
i would rather look at
http://flickr.com/photos/jpn/
http://flickr.com/photos/rags1969/
http://flickr.com/photos/arno-4m/
http://flickr.com/photos/smgallery/
http://flickr.com/photos/valpopando/
http://flickr.com/photos/chanc/
http://flickr.com/photos/wickdgin/(myself)
All those above are good photography as well as good HDR’s. Those who say otherwise probably couldn’t shoot a good photograph to save a life. HDR, Infrared, Digital Blending are all tools. Its art and for you to save what a tool should be used for is ridiculous. You going to tell me what I am supposed to do with a pen or paintbrush next? Nope. Keep on hating HDR, your view was written well and I respect it but I highly disagree that the links above are bad or sub par. Best wishes.
“…tool often held in the hand of amateurs…” What does that mean? I guess many of the folks in this thread were born as professional photographers and didn’t find any value in experimenting to find out what works for them and what doesn’t. Yes, it can be overused. Yes, it has been overused (many times), but so have many other forms of art. People need to get off of their high horse and quit thinking that they produce images that are so beautiful and technically perfect that everybody elses must be crap in comparison. I’ve seen a lot of art in museums that, frankly, I don’t know how it got there in the first place. I look at, decide I don’t care for it, and move on. But I don’t go around writing articles stating that everybody who uses that technique is a dolt just because I don’t care for it.
Pingback: HDR Max - New HDR software. « STUART FORSYTH .com
Hi,
I appreciate your view but I also think there is another window for extreme HDR If done properly as there are some works out there that I also hate. Please view my work here – http://imagepro.photography.com/JonAllen/gallery/?cid=6562 I will be Interested In your thoughts.
ATB
jon
Oh,
People must experiment to move forward so art/photography can progress. Some pro photographers, in my experience are getting on there high horse as amateurs are getting better and are willing to go out of the box to better there selves and get there own styles, wright or wrong its the only way to be, Its all down to personal taste not the PHOTOGRAPHY CIRCLE.
ATB
jon
Jim,
Reading your post (rather late, obviously) I can’t help feeling that your arguments are not against HDR but against bad tone mapping. When people think of HDR, they are typically seeing the output of the tone mapping step which takes the (completely undisplayable) 32 bit per component HDR image and maps its values back into our normal 8 bit component colour spaces to make it viewable. HDR itself is merely a method of saving an image file with 18+ stops of dynamic range by storing each pixel as 3, 32 bit floating point numbers, one for each colour component rather than 3 8 bit numbers as handled by todays monitors and encoded into JPEG files.
From my experience, it’s really easy to generate a terrible looking image in the tone mapping step and I would agree that about 95% of what people post as “HDR” has been mashed to death by terrible tone mapping.
It also seems that you are against the technique due to the fact that it results in unnatural looking images. I can’t disagree with the fact that even well-done tone mapped HDRs can look unnatural but, frankly, that’s why I use these techniques. I really enjoy the fact that I can add something different to an image and get people talking by using some of these techniques. That said, if you start with a bad photo, you just end up with a weird looking bad photo.
At the end of the day, though, this all boils down to the fact that taste in photographic art is hugely personal and one person’s perfect photo can be another person’s waste of hard-disk space.
Good observations. I also dislike virtually all HDR images that I have seen so far. As you note, this is a fashion rather than a solution; within a decade this HDR mania may well be the visual label of the noughties just as solarization by amateur photographers was emblematic of the 1970s. Improved dynamic range is a worthy goal, but today’s typical usage of HDR will eventually look embarrassing, not awe-inspiring.
HDR Is not viewable without the tone mapping Don, Its the overuse of the tone mapping what you may dislike.
I myself am enjoying using the tone mapping to the extreme its just a small part of photography,and even though I like studio work and digital manipulation I don’t see the problem In experimenting and having fun with it at the same time. Maybe you should try it and move with the times or are you one of the pro photographers who do not like change?
HDR is to photography as Thomas Kinkade is to painting.
You don’t like HDR photography and I don’t like abstract paintings. That does not mean however that either one is not a valid expression of art. Who says that photography has to be a virtual reproduction of the natural world. Look at the abstraction of black & white or the warping of color by the use of Fujichrome Velvia. Neither one protrays the world as we see it.
For that matter, no photograph can be a true representation of the real world. A photograph is a static recording of a dynamic situation, capturing only a moment in time; a two dimensional capture at that.
We do not view photographs in the same manner as we perceive the world around us. We can look at a photograph in it’s entirety and judge the contrast range of the whole image. When we view the real world our eyes dart from element to element, making localized contrast adjustments for each element. Except under very controlled conditions or low contrast lighting our eyes are unable to perceive the entire contrast range of the real world in one view. When we adjust an image in Photoshop, Photomatix, or the darkroom we are attempting to create an image as we remembered it or maybe even more importantly, how we want the viewer to experience it.
I can understand that you don’t like a particular manner of an artist’s vision. I don’t like Thomas Kinkade’s work either, but that doesn’t mean that his work has no merit. There should be no room in photography (as in life) for intolerance. After all, it was not too long ago that Kodachrome, Velvia or digital photography were considered abominations.
I disagree with Jim’s notion that the mathematics of only HDR digital photography is somehow isolated from all other aspects of digital photography or that HDR software is the only photographic software that “lacks the intelligence to display the output as the human brain would process it when naturally viewed.”
By conception, digital photography and its accompanying software is mathematically based. It’s all based on ones and zeros being manipulated either through a digital camera’s algorithms or the algorithms of Adobe Photoshop or other similar sofware programs.
HDR digital photography is somehow isolated from all other aspects of digital photography or that HDR software is the only photographic software that “lacks the intelligence to display the output as the human brain would process it when naturally viewed.”
By conception, all digital photography and its accompanying software is mathematically based. It’s based on ones and zeros being manipulated either through a digital camera’s algorithms or the algorithms of Adobe Photoshop or other similar software programs.
Maybe someone should have done the picture at the top of the page in HDR; the cloud highlights are totally clipped!
I think the most important thing to remember about being an artist is that you should always be creative in a way that is pleasing to yourself first and foremost.
If you enjoy the work that you have done the hell with what anyone else thinks.
I don’t think that any greatly respected artist ever created any work of art based on how they thought someone else would interpret
their work.
White zinfandel vs pinot noir, pop vs jazz, Jim Goldstein vs Ansel.
Is pinot noir better than white zinfandel? I guess “better” is a very relative term.
Many photographers think HDR photography is a party trick but this is defiantly not true. High Dynamic Range Photography is a major part of the future of photography. HDR photography is a new technology so many photographers are skeptical or unfamiliar with it. Like in any business you have to learn the new technology or trends, ignoring it or being scared to learn something new will just get you left behind. Information is power.
It’s not HDR itself that has caused a lot of photographers to think of it as a gimmick. It’s the way some photographers have latched onto it as a fix for an otherwise uninteresting photograph. As for HDR as a technique, it is not new technology at all. ‘VistaVision’, a cinematic format, used HDR processing back in the 1950’s. Even way back in the 19th century early photographers experimented with high dynamic range in the dark room. The trick is to get the image to look as natural as possible and not like something out of a science fiction movie – unless that’s the look you are after. My personal taste is for shadow and highlights that sculpture an image. I never use HDR and for that I guess I’m just an old fashioned guy.
Pingback: EXIF and Beyond: Trey Ratcliff (a.k.a. Stuck In Customs) | JMG-Galleries - Jim M. Goldstein Photography: travel, landscape, and nature pictures - stock photos and fine art prints
Great essay and comment stream!
I predict that in the not too distant future there will be cameras that have built in HDR capability – maybe by using a new type of “HDR” sensor.
Good thoughts here.
“I hate HDR..” is a stupid expression. A bit childish don’t you think?
HDR has a mission in communication – the same way as other photo techniques has it. If yu don’t like it does’nt mean you’re the right one to comment on it.
Jim, I really “hate” professionals that is not able to express more nueances and interesting view about a subject matter than you’re performing
I mean no ill will with my comment, yet merely offer a divergent point of view.
Fundamentally Jim, I have a feeling we don’t really disagree.
Having said that, I apologize for what may on the surface appear as a rude critique of your essay, I assure you it is not meant to be rude.
Who decides what’s real?
Are we now going to establish a series of unconscious social agreements about
what we have decided is “good and proper”.
I know, I know, we already have done that over the last 100 years of photography.
But the times, they are a changin’ and I know what to do when change comes knocking on my door.
I belive what the latest physics says about matter being mostly empty, I believe it because science tends to uncover finer and finer detail as what we call “time” goes on.
Is that improper? I happen to believe that time is a construct, just like space.
If fundamental things like atoms have turned out to be mostly empty, our ideas about “reality” have some growing up to do. Maybe we’re too used to seeing reality in only one way.
It’s ok to use HDR for a “correct” reason…???
The corollary of course must be that it’s not ok to use HDR for an incorrect reason.
But if the reason is incorrect, if the “why” is incorrect or out of balance with the notion of
subtlety and hidden beauty, it is only logical that the resultant image processed with HDR or a darkroom or what have you, could only turn out to be unbalanced as well.
This sounds like prosecution of technology
for the satiation of a philosophical belief system regarding,
“good and proper” photography.
If people want to make unbalanced un-nuanced images, let them.
Eventually anything that can happen, will happen, and there isn’t a thing we can do to stop it.
Conversely if an artist can capture a moment so deeply that it powerfully resonates
to any passerby, let him/her/it as well.
Story software such as Dramatica and others automate the writing of screenplays
yet without the attention of a live being behind the controls, carefully adjusting the
plot to reveal subtle meaning, we get formulaic hollywood.
I think the true crux of your argument is not “I hate HDR because of XYZ”
Though you may dislike what could be termed the “Bastardization of a promising technology”.
Furthermore, I do belive that the real source of unease is the 700 pound elephant in the room called free will.
“Why don’t people PAY ATTENTION to what they are shooting?”
“Why don’t they respect the wonder sitting just beyond their lens, before shooting through it.”
Well Jim, some people care and other people are just too blind to see.
Maybe they are supposed to be bastardizing HDR for the time being.
Maybe it’s not our place to judge.
Things always have a way of balancing themselves out.
This is why I love HDR:
I show up to a scene, decide to take 9 exposures bracketed 2 stops apart on motor drive at my chosen aperture. (ok, ok I embellish, I’v found that after 5 exposures there is a point of diminishing returns.) I pay attention so as not to introduce temporal artifacts into the composite. Instead of worrying about settings I’m focused on being there in that moment and understanding the point of view I see, because if you can’t understand what your imagination is telling you, then how on earth are you supposed to re-create it hours later?
The Nikon I use is almost always mounted on a tripod, cable release in hand I fire off the series of shots and then check them for alignment. I feel confident that I’v captured an enormous amount of visible light detail. I’m now free to muse about my imagined reality and realize it later on in the lab.
I process my images into a RAW HDR and save as an open EXR file with 32bits per channel of dynamic range information. Provided my image is sharp, and well composited, I can now return to this superposition of information and reinterpret the same scene multiple times, over and over and over.
This is what we do with our emotions everyday even when we look at static prints.
I love HDR and will use it to create “unreal” images every chance I get.
Unreal images don’t have to mean unbalanced images that cause discomfort, though I do
enjoy making my viewers a “little seasick” because of something they can’t quite pin down.
Isn’t that part of the beauty of art? Confronting the viewer with what they secretly know but have chosen to forget or repress. If that weren’t a part of art, I’d put down my camera and go looking for it elsewhere.
Have fun in the world of the “real”.
HDR is a tool like any other, and therefore can be misused like any other.
Respectfully,
Joe
P.S. I shoot with a Nikon D700 and this is one hell of a sensitive camera, you can do a LOT
with just the RAWs it produces. HDR is more for when I want all the light for later reinterpretation. I really like that idea, I’d like it even more if I could grab a simultaneous set of all apertures and selectively go through the images to find the best possible “version” of that moment. after all what are these photographic settings but ways to access different dimensions of observation.
Even after Joe’s long tome above, I’m convinced that HDR is a bit like Marmite: you either love it or you hate it- not HDR, but the way in which a lot of photographers, and those new to photography, have come to think of it as the Holy Grail of all photographic technique. For those people who like its effect, that’s cool; for those who don’t, that’s cool too. Like all photographic technique, HDR has its place in the scheme of things and can be used effectively if handled sensitively. But it’s a bit like those famous abstract images of Santorini: seen one, seen them all. And they do tend to leave you wanting something a little bit less than perfect after a while. When looking at the black and white images of the past, it’s the odd blemish from the negative, the occasional narrow depth of field, the slow shutter speed blur of a hand or head, the slight flaring of an uncoated lens. It’s these things that build character into an image. What we are missing from digital imaging is the delightful charm we had with film. Far from seeking perfection in our photography, we should be seeking to make our images look individual. I have yet to see any originality in the HDR images I have come across.
Pingback: PhotoWalkPro » HDR – The Debate Rolls On
For those of you wondering about a tamed down version of HDR for Architectural Interiors, try the “Exposure Fusion” function in Photomatix as opposed to HDR. It’s far from perfect but it gives much more realistic results than HDR. See this photo for an example – http://photo.srlarsen.com/gallery/8562571_H5H4D#563984178_vxezj-A-LB . It was shot without any supplemental lighting to overcome the existing lighting.
Pingback: How About Not? « TAB Photography
Pingback: HDR Imaging… « The Camera Zealot
Pingback: Ten tips for taking better digital photos : WanderLost Photography
Pingback: Exposure Fusion Experiments
Pingback: This IS Tony Bridge » Blog Archive » Of Expressionism, emotion and green sky
Pingback: SocialEyes photo » High Dynamic Range photography
let me just say i just right now found out about hdr.
i came across it as one of the programs in my opera browser feeds. then read about it on wikipedia. then googled some hdr images.
on first impression im not impressed by hdr. i dont know much about photography and i’ve come across hdr images before and they just looked fake but couldnt say why. now i know the word for it–hdr.
the first hdr picture was of a friend of mine and it looked fake. it looked like a painting more than a photograph.
i clicked most of the hdr links here and imo they just dont look real. i play computer video games and these hdr images look like images being developed for video games.
one thing that doesnt make games realistic is the images dont look “real”. they look like they were “drawn”. some of these pictures would look more real if they were just left natural. the high end games that look almost realistic look like they have “less hdr”.
pictures with hdr look cartoonish… or cgi-ish. yes they have more detail but just dont look realistic.
hdr images look like paintings. a painting will always be a painting and never be a photograph. thats what an hdr image looks like. a highly detailed painting.
High Dynamic Range photography certainly has to be done well. Some HDR photos are just as you describe, but if you look at what Trey Ratcliff has done, it’s amazing and print-worthy.
Pingback: (H)igh (D)ynamic (R)ange, Let’s talk about it… « Blake's Photography Solutions
Like nearly anything else, you have to develop proficiency with a technique. If you slap something together, it will look like garbage, but if you spend time working on this technique, you can produce realistic photos that are better than Standard Dynamic Range photos.
“I as a photographer” having just heard about HDR, and in a half hour you are a pro.
You’re a soccer mom with an slr on full auto.
F stop making a fool of yourself.
HAH pun.
SORRY MY FRIEND>>>>BUT YOU HAVE NO ART APPRECEATION AT ALL
thats what they are supposed to look like….BOZO
yup
I can understand why you hate HDR. It is hard to find pictures that even remotely look good. That is because joe shmoe is going out into his backyard, snapping a picture, editing it (quickly) in photoshop and then posting on the internet as an HDR photo. I think that if actual photographers take the time and artistic skill to make an HDR photo they can be beautiful! Photography is art and come in many different forms.